Legal Opinion · Dissent

Poore v. Simpson Paper Co.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided September 22, 2008No. 05-36060Published

1DissentGrader, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent.

A. The majority confuses subject matter jurisdiction with the merits.

“Federal courts have an ‘unflagging’ duty to hear cases that are properly before them.” Cinema Arts, Inc. v. County of Clark, 722 F.2d 579, 582 (9th Cir.1983) (quoting Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976)). The majority shirks this responsibility by closing the courthouse door to plaintiffs who raise colorable claims under federal law. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 117-18, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Bell v. HoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  4. Litton Financial Printing Div., Litton Business Systems, Inc. v. NLRBSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Robert D. Sprague, Plaintiffs-Appellees/cross-Appellants v. General Motors Corporation, Defendant-Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API